TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1994 (10) TMI 267
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Bill of Entry was presented for the clearance on 14-9-1993 at the Air Cargo Unit, New Delhi. The value of the goods was declared in the Bill of Entry at US $ 25.10 per piece CIF. On examination, the Department found that the manufacturer of the goods is M/s. Gardiner of U.S.A. The Department was of the view that the value declared was low as compared to similar imports by others and also noted that the goods have been imported from or through a trader, namely, M/s. Unico Electronics, Hong Kong and not from the manufacturer, who in this case is M/s. Gardiner of U.S.A. The Department, therefore, asked the appellants to produce manufacturer's invoice. In the absence of such an invoice, the Department held that the value declared cannot be acce....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mported are from the same manufacturer and of the same make and model and in the case of M/s. Catvision Products Ltd., the import is directly from the manufacturer from U.S.A. whereas in the present case, the import is from a trader in Hong Kong. The Collector, therefore, held that the Invoice value was not acceptable. He ordered enhancement of the value at U.S. $ 42.50 per piece FOB. He also ordered confiscation of the goods under Section 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962 for misdeclaration giving the appellants option to redeem the goods on payment of a fine of Rs. 25,000/- in lieu of confiscation. A penalty of Rs. 10,000/- was also imposed on the appellants. 2. The learned Counsel, Shri S.S. Puri appearing for the appellants, submi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....wherein the charged price to the supplier is U.S. $ 23.50 per piece as against which the suppliers have charged uniform price U.S. $ 25.10 from the appellants. Since the value declared is in accordance with the value declared per piece, the learned Counsel, therefore, cited a series of case law which, he pointed out, have not been adverted to in the Collector's order. He emphasised the case reported in 1992 (62) E.L.T. 528 in the case of Sandip Agarwal v. Collector of Customs to say as held by Calcutta High Court that when the Customs authorities have cleared identical goods at identical price for the past, they are bound by the precedent decision in another case reported in 1994 (71) E.L.T. 310 in the case of Parekh & Co. v. Collector of C....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pplied Rule 6. There is, thus, no infirmity. The learned D.R. argued that the transaction value, as declared, can be rejected when there is evidence of contemporary imports. The decision of the Tribunal in the case of Veekay Fotokad India (P) Ltd. v. Collector of Customs, New Delhi [1995 (80) E.L.T. 725 (Tribunal) = 1993 (49) ECR 493 (T)] was cited to say that invoice value can be rejected in view of the imports at higher level from the same supplier. The ratio of this decision, the ld. DR urged, is fully applicable to this case. He also relied upon the case law reported in 1992 (59) E.L.T. 314 in the case of East African Traders v. Collector of Customs, for the proposition, the declared value can be enhanced on the basis of similar goods. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....to be contemporaneous. This import relied upon by the Department for the same goods from the same manufacturer has been found to be at higher level. The appellants have not substantiated their claim for the difference in the price was due to the difference in the quantity imported as between 500 pieces the appellants have imported compared to 100 and 150 pieces in the other imports. The records do not contain any correspondence or other documentary evidence by way of indent and acceptance for the goods as negotiated and ordered by the appellants, herein. There is no evidence as to the basis on which the appellants can say that in respect of these goods, the quantities of the order placed would affect price especially when it is noticed that....